Airey Houses

HC Deb 25 June 1982 vol 26 cc550-8

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

11.35 am

Mr. Heddle

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) that I shall not detain the House any longer than is necessary. However, my debate is of great national importance.

Before 11 am I had reminded the House of the origins of the Airey house system. The Airey house was devised by Sir Edmund Airey, a chartered architect of Leeds. The document supplied to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe states that the system has been selected by the Government as the quickest and most effective means of providing additional new permanent houses to meet the urgent needs of rural areas. The problem arises out of the sale of Airey houses by numerous councils. They were built between 1946 and 1955 as a limited part of the immediate post-war building programme to accommodate the post-war bulge. In December 1980, the Department of the Environment became aware that defects that had recently been drawn to its attention by Barnsley borough council might affect Airey houses nation-wide. The Government's Building Research Establishment immediately instituted investigations into the alleged problem and concluded that the design of the reinforced concrete columns in those houses was such that they were liable to corrosion and cracking. The effect of the defect is to reduce the life of the houses and to affect their structural integrity with a possible risk to safety in exceptional circumstances.

The document given to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone ad Hythe was published about 1952–53 and was issued by the Cement and Concrete Association. It describes the structure of the houses thus: The structure consists of light reinforced concrete posts of storey height spaced at 18 in. centres in external, spine, and party walls. The posts are positioned on the concrete foundation slab and at first floor level by temporary steel jigs which simplify accurate setting out. Those are technical terms with which those in the construction industry will be familiar. The walls are faced externally with special precast concrete slabs and lined internally with insulating fabric and an appropriate wall lining. The first floor and roof members are bolted to the vertical posts, thus tying the structure together. Freedom in planning, based on the 18 in. spacing of wall posts, is possible, and any type of internal finishing may be adopted. The relevant point of the document is in the next sentence The system complies with the recommended structural and physical standards laid down by the Inter-Departmental Committee on House Construction appointed by the Ministry of Works, and has been approved by the Ministry of Health for adoption by local authorities. There are about 26,000 Airey houses in Britain, 250 of which are in my constituency. Lichfield district council owns 172 and Tamworth borough council owns about 70 or 80. Those houses may well have some corrosion or cracking. Until the local authorities have carried out, on the Government's instructions, house-by-house structural surveys, it is difficult to quantify the extent of the structural defects.

However, it is fair to quote from a document published in April 1982 by the Building Research Establishment entitled "Airey houses: technical information and guidance". Paragraph 4, entitled "Assessment of condition and safety", states: The degree of deterioration of columns in Airey houses has been found to be very variable—in some cases severe corrosion and concrete cracking is now present, in others there is either no cracking or only limited cracking at the column bases. Most cases are between these extremes. My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Fred Abdella of 33 Beech Gardens, Lichfield, bought their Airey council house under a voluntary arrangement with the Lichfield district council in 1972. It would not be appropriate for me to advise the House of the price that was agreed when the transaction took place. However, the purchasers borrowed their money on a mortgage to enable them to acquire their council house as sitting tenants from the district council.

The publicity given to the Barnsley case, and the publicitiy given generally, and quite rightly, to the Government's commendable action in instructing the Building Research Establishment to carry out a survey of these properties, means that Airey houses in general, whether they have any defects large, small, substantial or minor, have become almost unsaleable.

Mr. and Mrs. Abdella have been told by the agent whom they instructed to place their property on the open market that there was no point in doing so because a previous purchaser that the agent introduced was unable to obtain a mortgage from a reputable building society because building societies are not, as a matter of practice, lending money on mortgage on Airey houses unless and until the Department's findings, based on the Building Research Establishment's surveys, have given Airey houses a completely clean bill of health.

There are two schools of thought and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to shed some light on them. The document that I have read states specifically that Airey houses were erected in accordance with the specification and guidelines laid down by the Ministry of Housing. It seems that there was no intention that these properties should have a limited life, although they were of necessity of prefabricated construction and it was normally assumed that the buildings known as prefabs that were constructed after the war were likely to have a limited life.

If the Airey houses were likely to have a limited life, I question the wisdom of any local authority selling properties of the Airey house type to sitting tenants, either prior to the Housing Act 1980 by voluntary agreement or under the right-to-buy provisions of the 1980 Act.

I shall read to the House three letters. The first letter is from a purchaser in my constituency who, like the Abdellas, has bought under the right-to-buy provisions. The other two letters come from tenants who would, in other circumstances, wish to exercise their right to buy under the provisions of the 1980 Act.

The first letter, which is dated 10 July, was written by Mr. and Mrs. Ken Atkins of 27 Brook Avenue, Wilnecote, Tamworth. It reads: You may have read the article in the Sun newspaper published on … 24 June 1981, headed 'Hunt for Houses of Danger'. This report has caused both my wife and I some anxiety as we purchased this type of house from the Tamworth Council on April 3 1981. The only information we have at the time of writing is that there are to be inspections carried out nationally. We have an improvement project on order for new windows and are obviously very concerned as to where we would stand if the findings of the inspections are adverse. We would be very grateful to have the opportunity to talk to you on this matter at your next surgery". Another of my constituents, Mrs. G. Ward of 12 Beech Gardens, Lichfield, wrote on 12 May as follows: Dear Sir, I don't know whether you can help me in this matter … My problem is that we are buying a council house at the above address which is an Airey house, you may have heard of these, if not can I just say that the structure of some of these houses has been found to be defective, now they have been checked and from what I can gather some are safe at the moment, others have small amounts of corrosion. My concern is for our future. I know building societies are refusing mortgages on these properties, added to bad publicity we are unable to sell if we wished. Also they are safe now but what for the future? Do we stand to lose our home and money in ten years' time? Finally, I shall read the letter that I received from Mrs. Wellum of 19, Levett Road, Botany Bay, Lichfield. I have described to the House the position of one tenant who bought prior to the 1980 Act. Mr. and Mrs. Atkins bought under the right-to-buy provisions of that Act. We have had evidence from Mrs. Ward that she and her husband were in the process of buying. Mrs. Wellum writes: I am writing to see if you can give me some light on the situation of the Airey house we live in, we have had one test done and no news, as we are waiting to buy our own council house we are eager to find out what is going to happen to these, there are reports about every district except Lichfield, if possible I do not want to move because of my job at Whittington Barracks. As my husband and I are 44, we do not want to leave buying a house too late, we both at the moment are in quite good jobs. I must pay tribute to the way in which the Lichfield district council has handled with sympathy and understanding the fears that I have put to them on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Ward, Mr. and Mrs. Wellum and Mr. and Mrs. Abdella. On 11 June, the director of housing and environmental services of the Lichfield district council, sent a circular to all tenants of Airey houses in the Lichfield district. It read: On Tuesday, 8 June, 1982 the Housing Committee considered a report on the problems associated with Airey houses and received a petition from tenants. The Committee are satisfied that your house and the remainder of the Airey houses in the council's area are not in immediate danger but to reassure you they have set up a special sub-committee which will consider, as a matter of urgency, what is the best method of securing the future of your home. You will be aware from articles in the local papers that other authorities have decided to replace their Airey houses. This should not alarm you because where early demolition has been carried out this related to foundation and other problems not connected with the Airey type of construction and I am pleased to say that no such problems have been identified in any Airey house in this district. The Council is making every effort to reach the right solution. Councillor Hodgetts in chairing the special Sub-Committee has told me that he intends to proceed as quickly as possible and will personally ensure that you are kept as fully in the picture as possible. As soon as there is anything more positive to tell you, I will write to you again, but until such time may I thank you for your patience and request that you continue to co-operate with the Council's offices and the Consultant Engineers of the County Council who are for the time being continuing with the survey of the structural condition of your Airey house. To constituents such as Mr. and Mrs Abdella and Mr. and Mrs. Atkins, who have bought their houses, the director of administration of the district council wrote that he had been asked … to write to you to keep you informed of the Council's intentions with regard to your property … The Committee is satisfied that your house and the remainder of the Airey houses in the Council's area are area not in immediate danger … The Council is making every effort to reach the right solution for all parties and Councillor Hodgetts, in chairing the special Sub-Committee has told me he intends to proceed as quickly as possible … It is hoped that a final report will be submitted to the Housing committee on 14 September, 1982. The Housing Committee has accepted that the Council has a moral commitment to assist those like yourselves who have bought an Airey house and the Council at its meeting on 20 July, 1982 will be recommended to consider that, having regard to the exceptional circumstances, the Council should be prepared depending upon the circumstances of each individual case to repurchase your property. The Lichfield district council has adopted a sympathetic, understanding and constructive attitude to a particularly serious problem that is causing great anguish and heartache to many thousands of former council tenants who wish to embark upon the largest single investment of their lives, that of home ownership.

Those people thought that they were buying a property that was structurally sound. After all, such property was constructed in accordance with guidelines and specifications laid down by the then Ministry of Housing, approved by the interdepartmental committee to which I have referred, and confirmed by the Ministry of Health. Unfortunately, these people find that because of the blight that is their plight, they have bought what I can only describe as a pig in a poke.

I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether he can agree with my sentiments that in those exceptional circumstances there is a case to be made for the rights of those poor individuals to be protected. They could not have found out about those inherent and integral structural defects. A structural surveyor could not have taken an Airey house apart, concrete panel by concrete panel, concrete frame by concrete frame, and then dissected that frame and found that the steel reinforcing bar was corroding, then cracking, the concrete frame.

The well-tried and normally adopted path of caveat emptor does not apply in those tragic cases. I invite my hon. Friend to consider in what way he feels the Department of the Environment can help local authorities such as the Lichfield district council and the Tamworth borough council to assist their tenants and former tenants in getting out of that Catch 22 situation.

I have some suggestions to make to my hon. Friend. I commend the Department on having acted with its customary efficiency and speed in instructing the Building Research Establishment. I suggest that it embarks on discussions with the Association of District Councils and the Association of Municipal Authorities forthwith—if it has not done so already—to see how the problem can be overcome. The Department should then give permission to the local authorities to buy back Airey houses occupied by former council tenants, now owners, who wish to sell their Airey houses back to the councils, not at cost, as has been offered to Mr. and Mrs. Abdella for the house that they bought 10 years ago—the historic cost has no reflection on the current market value, either with or without the defects—but at a current sitting tenant value.

I put to my hon. Friend the case of tenants who would otherwise wish to buy their Airey house, such as the Wellums and the Wards. They have complied with the conditions laid down by the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act that they should have occupied their house for a minimum of three years—the House will recall that if they have been in occupation for 20 years, council tenants are entitled to a 50 per cent. discount. In order to preserve their rights those tenants should be able to translate their right to buy to another permanently built property in the council's housing stock.

I invite my hon. Friend to agree that the Government have some responsibility—I do not know whether it would be the Department of the Environment or the Treasury—because the erection of those houses was by Government initiative. A scheme should be devised whereby the compensation that is paid to tenants who have already exercised their right to buy, such as the Abdellas in the Lichfield district council area, should not be a burden on individual local authorities' housing revenue accounts.

The problem that I have illustrated to the House raises the basic question whether local authorities should sell houses which were built specifically to fulfil a short-term need and which, in the view of many, were likely to have only a limited life. There should be a departmental inquiry into the progressive deterioration of all public buildings and particularly, because it affects the lives of the families who live in them, houses built by means of industrialised and semi-industrialised building systems under successive Governments.

At Question Time on Wednesday my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, in answer to question 1 on the Order Paper, said that there was a reservoir of sympathy in the Department for the plight of people such as Mr. and Mrs. Abdella, Mr. and Mrs. Atkins, Mr. and Mrs. Ward and Mr. and Mrs. Wellum. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will say that the Department is prepared to translate that sympathy into action.

11.55 am

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle), who is my neighbour, in asking the Government to give particular attention to the alarming and unexpected contingency that has arisen.

The East Staffordshire district council, which is the council that covers the whole Burton division, has more Airey houses than any other local authority in the West Midlands area—221 houses are owned by it and 31 have been sold. The residents are naturally extremely worried. The East Staffordshire district council is also worried, because it is either about to or has just decided to repurchase all the houses sold under the right-to-buy legislation. My hon. Friend complimented the Lichfield council. I pay my respects to the sympathetic and extremely helpful attitude of the East Staffordshire district council. The council is worried that it will be left with an additional £1 million a year bill over a five-year period in order to repurchase those houses and repair the existing Airey houses owned by it. The HIP allocation will take some account of that need, but unless extra help is given there will be an inevitable distortion of the remaining current housing programme in the East Staffordshire district council area.

I do not wish to take up any more time, because there is urgent business to follow. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth in his plea to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government should consider that it may not be adequate just to take into account for the next year the costing in the HIP programme. Something extra special should be given to relieve local authorities such as mine and that of my hon. Friend, which are facing a need that is causing such deep concern to the residents in our areas.

11.57 am

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw)

I shall respond to the debate on this extremely important, not to say grievous, matter, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) has introduced. I take note of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about the possible effects on HIP allocations for local authorities.

I preface my remarks by making two apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth. The first is that this is not my normal area of activity. Therefore, I am not able to give the response that might have been given if my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is so well versed in the problem, had been here this morning.

The second is that, as my hon. Friend knows from the question answered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on Wednesday, the matter that he has raised is causing much heartsearching. Therefore, it is not possible to provide the answers to the specific questions that have been raised, because the ramifications of the problems have still to be fully examined.

However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are involved in discussion and correspondence with the Association of District Councils on the matter. My hon. Friend is right in saying that the problem is likely to affect most housing authorities. In my constituency of Pudsey there are a number of Airey houses. The city of Leeds is one of the authorities with a large number of Airey houses, because, as my hon. Friend said, the Airey system originated in that part of the world.

My hon. Friend also referred to the consideration of transfer of the right to buy. That will certainly be considered, but it is an extremely complex proposal. Nevertheless, I take note of my hon. Friend's advocacy of it and will ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction considers it.

There has undoubtedly been considerable anxiety about the discovery of defects in Airey houses. It is especially hard on those, some of them elderly, who have lived in a house for many years and have come to regard it with considerable affection as their home. It is hard, too, for those who have recently bought their homes and have spent a great deal of time and effort improving and modernising them and tailoring them to the needs of their families.

My hon. Friend referred to tenants involved in right-to-buy procedures, who are also now involved in the complexities arising from the problem. They are having to wait while local authorities take care in arriving at decisions on the future of the Airey houses concerned, whether the tenants have applied for the right to buy or are considering doing so. These highly complex problems require expert technical analysis and I fear that I have no other solace but to tell my hon. Friend that tenants will have to bear with local authorities while the inspection of houses and analysis of the findings is under way.

My hon. Friend raised the question of those in the process of considering the right to buy an Airey house in relation to surveys. Provided that the survey is thorough and the offer price reflects the results of the survey, that would still seem to be a sensible route to take.

I shall recount the action taken by the Government on the problem so far. As my hon. Friend recalled, Airey houses were built as part of the immediate post-war prefabricated housing programme. My hon. Friend quoted a circular of the day which stated that it was not intended that the houses should be regarded merely as temporary structures. The then Government and other bodies expected that they would last a great deal longer than they have done and it was hoped that they would provide permanent homes equal in standard and quality to traditional homes.

About 18 months ago, however, a local authority found that the structural posts in an Airey house were cracked and alerted the Department. The Building Research Establishment was immediately commissioned to investigate the problem and to prepare a report. The investigation established that the cracking of the post was due to corrosion of the steel reinforcing tube and that as Airey houses were of standard construction there was a possibility that the fault might be common to all such houses. It also concluded that the effect might be to reduce the life of the structure, and might affect its structural integrity, with a possible risk to safety in extreme circumstances. In this context, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment that it is the exceptional circumstances that could cause exceptional problems.

In view of the potential risk to safety, the Department immediately wrote to all local authorities on 14 May last year notifying them of the findings of the BRE investigation and advising them to initiate a programme of inspection of their stock of Airey houses. In that letter we also asked local authorities to inform any owners of Airey houses in their areas that similar houses had been found to have defects and to recommend that they consider obtaining independent expert advice. They were also asked to advise anyone who might be in the process of purchasing an Airey house or who might wish to do so in the future of the possible existence of structural defects in such houses.

Advice was therefore passed to local authorities, upon which action was no doubt taken, to warn all those who were living in or considering the purchase of an Airey house, or who might be involved in such purchase, of the problem that had been identified. To aid the authorities' own experts in their investigations, a note was prepared by the BRE setting out in detail the nature of the problem and appropriate methods of inspection. This was circulated with the letter in May last year.

To assist the Department in building up a national picture, authorities were asked to submit to the BRE by July last year the survey results on the first two dwellings that they inspected, and to submit the results of the inspection of the remainder of their stock when the investigations were completed.

Having analysed the returns received, the BRE held seminars in November last year at which its findings were presented to representatives of local authorities and other owners. Information so far received shows that a considerable percentage of Airey houses have at least incipient structural faults. In a few cases, deterioration is so advanced and the cost of repair so great that councils have decided to demolish them. Others have concluded that houses are likely to remain serviceable for many years. There are signs that deterioration is more common in certain parts of the country. As a result of its inspections to date a local authority may well have some idea of the likelihood of defects in a given house even if it has not yet inspected it, but this will be no more than a general indication. Only a structural survey in which the condition of the posts within the cavities is examined can reveal the exact condition of each house.

As a result of the surveys and seminars the BRE was asked to prepare further technical information and guidance on inspection procedures, on the assessment of conditions and safety and on possible courses of action for use both by local authorities and by private owners. Copies of this guidance note were sent to local authorities on 13 May this year, with the request that they forward copies to all owners of Airey houses in their areas. The advice issued by the BRE will help local authorities and owners to discover whether a particular Airey house is defective and whether repair or, in extreme cases, rebuilding, is required.

I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise, therefore, that, in addition to the sympathy which he noted had been expressed by the Department, fairly massive action has been taken to obtain advice on the scale of the problem. Local authorities can now act on that advice in the survey of their own stock. This, one hopes, will allow an assessment to be made of those houses that are at risk. Indeed, some local authorities have already completed their investigations.

In determining the housing investment programme allocations for 1982–83, the Department's regional offices have taken into account, where appropriate, the incidence of the need for work on Airey houses in the same way as any other special local need. In this context, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton will note, in relation to the problems of East Staffordshire council, that this will come into the calculation for HIP purposes. The provisions of the Housing Act 1980 make capitalised repairs reckonable for subsidy. The effect is that 75 per cent. of the cost of repairs and, of course, redevelopment may be reckonable in this way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth will, I am sure, appreciate that the issues that he has raised are complex. I know that he understands that it will take a considerable time to arrive at further decisions on this complex problem. I hope, however, that he will recognise that, at least initially, action has been taken.

I share my hon. Friend's view that the manner in which Lichfield district council is dealing with the matter shows its sympathy and desire to assist. My hon. Friend suggested that the council might be seeking to purchase back under certain conditions. I should not stand in its way if it wishes to do so, but the council will, I hope, recognise, as I am sure it does, the propriety of paying more than the market value of these houses.

The problem facing owners such as Mr. and Mrs. Abdella and my hon. Friend's other constituents will clearly continue to give rise for concern. My understanding is that Mr. and Mrs. Abdella did not purchase under the right-to-buy procedure, as they purchased in 1972. However, what might happen as a result obviously affects them as individuals and also affects my hon. Friend personally in so far as he seeks to provide the best advice to his constituents.

I cannot add to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction said in reply to the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) on Wednesday about the consequences of these actions. I have to tell my hon. Friend that it is not possible for us to provide here and now further advice on what steps should be taken, or to make any comment on his plea that there should be Government assistance in dealing with local authority liabilities.

Meanwhile, local authority tenants who wish to buy are entitled to exercise their rights if they fulfil the relevant conditions of the Housing Act 1980. Known or potential defects would be a matter to be taken into account. Hence, it is important that the price ensuing from the survey reflects what the survey has to say.

We would strongly advise any tenant who wishes to proceed with the purchase of an Airey house to obtain expert independent advice on its structural condition, particularly where the local authority has not yet itself carried out a full structural survey and made the results available. A thorough survey is, unfortunately, likely to be both disruptive and costly. The upshot could be that the tenant eventually decides not to proceed. It would, however, be better to have that information to hand than to proceed unadvisedly to take a decision that might ultimately be regretted.

My hon. Friend has rightly raised an issue of major concern. That concern is shared by many hon. Members, as evidenced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton. Many hon. Members wish to see the matter dealt with in an appropriate, thorough and fair fashion. The Government are at present conducting a thorough appraisal. We hope that it will lead to further guidance being given in due course.